ORDER :

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 30th June, 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 1760 of 2001 by which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and thereby reversed the judgment and order passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Sessions Case No. 146 of 1998 acquitting the appellant herein of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short the "IPC").

2. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:-

(A) The appellant herein was in love with the deceased viz. Mamatha.

(B) PW-1 is the father of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant used to persistently request PW-1 to give the hand of his daughter Mamatha in marriage to him.

(C) The PW-1 rejected the proposal of marriage put forward by the appellant herein.

(D) On 22.8.1998, the deceased was heading towards Yaliyur Gate which connects the National Highway no.4. Since the PW-1 declined to give his daughter Mamatha in marriage to the appellant herein he had some spite towards the family.

(E) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein stalked and accosted the deceased. Initially there was some conversation between the two and at the end of it the accused is alleged to have it the deceased with a chopper three to four times.

(F) According to the prosecution, PW-2 Gangamma is one of the eye witnesses to the incident. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW-3 at the relevant point of time was nearby the place of occurrence as he was sitting to answer nature's call. PW 2 & 3 at the relevant point of time was studying in Chikkanahalli School. The incident occurred early in the morning at around 7.45 am. The PW-2 was coming back from school as holiday was declared abruptly.

G). According to PW-2 after she reached school, she was informed by the school authorities that the school would remain closed being Bhimana Amavasya. Therefore, PW-2 was returning home from her school.

(H) It is the case of the prosecution that the PW-2 while on her way to home witnessed the assault.

(I) After witnessing the assault, the PW-2 first reached the house of PW-1 and informed him about the incident. Thereafter, PW 2 reached her own house and informed about the assault to her family members.

(J) In such circumstances, referred to above, the PW-1 lodged the First Information Report as regards the incident at the concerned police station.

(K) On FIR being registered, the Police started with the investigation. The inquest Panchnama of the dead body was carried out in presence of the Panch Witnesses. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. The clothes worn by the deceased at the time of incident were collected and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis.

(L) The appellant herein came to be arrested. At the time of his arrest a Panchnama of his person was drawn.

(M) The clothes worn by the accused at the time of the incident were recovered and collected by the Investigating Officer. The clothes contained blood stains. The clothes were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. (N) In the course of the investigation, discovery panchnama of the weapon of offence i.e. the chopper, was drawn in presence of two independent Panch witnesses in accordance with Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT .

(O) At the end of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The case was committed to the Court o